Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,815 Year: 3,072/9,624 Month: 917/1,588 Week: 100/223 Day: 11/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Christian conversion experience: descriptions/analysis/links: input invited
Gilgamesh
Inactive Member


Message 46 of 199 (215235)
06-08-2005 2:05 AM
Reply to: Message 25 by Faith
06-07-2005 12:58 AM


This post should preceed the previous one!
Perhaps because although he was exaggerating for the sake of humor, it's not that he meant to say such dramatic experiences are necessarily false.
And as I stated above, these un-documentable and unverifiable anecdotes of dramatic experiences oft float around various churches. Some have basis in fact; often mythically embellished over time.
So you do mean to say that you've witnessed someone claim that before BAPTISM they didn't believe but after it they did?? Baptising an unbeliever is a very wrong thing to do, but obviously they baptized you so it must happen.
Yes. In many cases they possess non-descript religious beliefs, but in some cases they are agnostic prior to the conversion experience. Sometimes after the conversion experience, once they have had the requisite prep talk from the church elders, they go along with the new faith and will profess and belief in it.
Those chruches who use this approach proclaim the process has Biblical authority. You might want to take the issue up with them.
I can see that an unbeliever who has the falling-over-backwards experience, if it's as real as many claim it is, would be awed by the supernatural power involved, and at least come to believe in the supernatural. Beyond that I'd tread very carefully in trying to understand what really happened.
You close your eyes, get wobbly and someone pushes you over. In many cases you put on a reasonable performance and play along with the spirit of things, might writhe on the floor, laugh or cry etc. Nothing supernatural there.
Exactly the same as a Martin St James "hypnosis" shows. Some 15 odd years ago, I myself did my very best Michael Jackson dance impersonation in front of thousands of people I didn't know. Not because I had succombed to the supernatural, not because I was hypnotised, because it was fun and I was prepared to play along. Martin sent those that did not want to play along back to their seats.
Christianity as a whole in its historical traditional expression to be highly rational and in fact the very source of empirical science
Cough. You're joking, right? This is the religion that put civilised society and early Greek incarnations of science on hold for about 1500 years. The religion that early scientists has to tread carefully around in fear of their life. The same religion that in it's present fundementalist manifestations seeks to once again censor science because it has replaced creation myths with scientific theory.
but I deny evolution. Many unbelievers simply make a kneejerk equation between a denial of evolution and irrationalism. To be fair, you need to make extremely careful distinctions.
IMO there is no rational basis on which to deny evolution. 150 years worth of re-inforcement and additional evidence, thousands of scientists working across many inter-related testable fields of science vs the ever shrinking cry of the worshippers of the God of the Gaps: "we haven't seen a wolf turn into a whale, so we're still unconvinced".
I know many Christians accept evolution and the age of the earth and that Christianity need not rest upon the validity of a literal interpretation of the Bible, but Christian fundamentalism can be pulled apart on these issues. From their the rest follows, and you guys know it. That's why you are kicking and screaming so hard and using every trick in the box. Emotional conversion experiences are just one of them.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 25 by Faith, posted 06-07-2005 12:58 AM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 49 by Faith, posted 06-08-2005 3:58 AM Gilgamesh has replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 47 of 199 (215237)
06-08-2005 2:22 AM
Reply to: Message 40 by arachnophilia
06-07-2005 8:40 PM


Re: charismatic experiences
..still, i'm sure, the possibility does exist of the occasional REAL alien abduction. but as it remains, most if not all of the ones reported have very down-to-earth explanations.
Oh I don't think they are alien abductions, but I think it's possible they are some kind of demonic deception. In a class with UFO sightings, leprechauns, fairies and the like, an idea which was suggested by a book on UFOs I read many years ago -- not by a Christian.
still, to extend my analogy, there's one alien abduction report that i'm not sure about. it's a famous one, too. betty and barney hill. not only do their stories corroborate one another, but they report being shown a star chart. reportedly, the stars on betty's drawing are able to be matched with a known constellation, from a different perspective. and it reportedly contained two stars which had not even been found at the time. of course, i don't know the veracity of that information, but i keep the option of a real abduction open in that case.
I haven't read much of this kind of report, but this is exactly the kind of thing I'd think of attributing to demonic deception.
It usually falls out to be a witch hunt on the part of the accusers. The accusations of misbehaviors in churches seem to be growing -- the accusations are outlandish but great lengths are gone to to prove them, people's lives ruined by overzealous psychologists prompting children to "remember" things that never happened.
=====
you know, that's sort of a good point. what if the molestation scandal is the same exact thing? that warrants investigation, i think.
I don't doubt those cases myself. There it's individuals coming in many years after the fact, as adults, not the same thing I'm thinking of. The case where they hounded these poor people who ran a child care in California was very much a witch hunt that involved the whole community however, whipped up by a social worker who prompted children to say that bizarre things were done to them.
Meaning what? The eyes rolled back in the head in meditation is illustrated in some books on Hindu practice.
=====
meaning, the third eye. it sees on a different plane, the spiritual. supposedly, anyways. i researched hinduism only breifly, and only in regards to certain things.
Yes, that's the point. They were seeing this apparition, which the people following them couldn't see. I tuned in to see this report on the Mary apparitions out of curiosity. I was surprised to see the girls in that strange posture, with their heads thrown back and their eyes rolled up.
No, that's orthodox doctrine. Original sin is real.
=====
to quote myself in another thread: "i believe in micro-sin-death, but not macro-sin-death."
i do not believe in original sin. it doesn't make sense, and alleges that god is unjust. why should i punished for someone thousands of generations my ancestor?
It's a matter of what the Bible says. God told them they would die if they ate of that fruit and they died. Paul simply emphasizes that when he says in Romans 5:12 "Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned...."
god makes up a set of rule designed to damn us, and then saves us from those rules? so basically, god's saving us from god. kind of silly, isn't it?
Some of us consider it to be beautiful and mysterious. It's not a matter of God's "making up" rules -- God's Law reflects His very nature, his mind, his perfect justice, his holiness, his perfection -- when we violate it we violate him personally in a sense, we reject him, we put him at a distance from us.
i believe that god saved us from ourselves. it is our TENDENCY and nature to sin, but we do not have to pay for the sins of others.
But now in these last few statements you are not even pretending to follow the Bible, not even interpreting, you are simply making up what you want it to mean. You just throw out those parts you don't like. Same with your speculations about the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. You are simply pondering it from your own feelings rather than what the Bible actually says.
This message has been edited by Faith, 06-08-2005 02:23 AM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 40 by arachnophilia, posted 06-07-2005 8:40 PM arachnophilia has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 62 by arachnophilia, posted 06-08-2005 8:01 PM Faith has replied

  
Phat
Member
Posts: 18262
From: Denver,Colorado USA
Joined: 12-30-2003
Member Rating: 1.1


Message 48 of 199 (215242)
06-08-2005 3:13 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by Gilgamesh
06-02-2005 11:15 PM


Quite an interesting topic!
Gilgamesh, you may know that I was and am a born again Christian. As of late, I have backed away from church involvement and have experimented with other belief systems...one of the reasons that I like to hang out at this site! I never get affirming patson the back, here...which is what I need to test my faith.
I read through that website by Dick Sutphen. He seems genuine to me, and is in no way against God or spirituality. He points out that nobody can trult be immune from brainwashing techniques, however..so i wonder how you claim to be immune from such entrapments!
I was "born again" and converted through a cultlike church and thought that many of the rituals were wrong...even though I was a believer. We had demons cast out of people and I saw genuine reactions to such stuff...This is interesting, and worthy of more of my time to study. Sutphen emphasizes that most preachers are unaware of this technique and use it through copying "what works" from other preachers.
SCHRAFF====If you read this, know that I have FINALLY found something that both you and I agree to be real!
Add by edit: Oops..I am a bit wary! This guy is one of those new age people from my sisters hometown of Sedona, Arizona! They can't be any worse than fundies, though...can they???
This message has been edited by Phatboy, 06-08-2005 01:32 AM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Gilgamesh, posted 06-02-2005 11:15 PM Gilgamesh has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 52 by Gilgamesh, posted 06-08-2005 4:20 AM Phat has replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 49 of 199 (215248)
06-08-2005 3:58 AM
Reply to: Message 46 by Gilgamesh
06-08-2005 2:05 AM


Re: This post should preceed the previous one!
I can see that an unbeliever who has the falling-over-backwards experience, if it's as real as many claim it is, would be awed by the supernatural power involved, and at least come to believe in the supernatural. Beyond that I'd tread very carefully in trying to understand what really happened.
You close your eyes, get wobbly and someone pushes you over. In many cases you put on a reasonable performance and play along with the spirit of things, might writhe on the floor, laugh or cry etc. Nothing supernatural there.
That's your theory but what's your proof? Some of us who did fake it KNOW we faked it. But if others deny faking it or describe something that would be very hard to fake you are just going to insist your interpretation is the truth about what happened no matter what, right? As you just now did, as if you KNOW it's nothing but "playing along" -- but again, you cannot prove that for all cases.
Exactly the same as a Martin St James "hypnosis" shows. Some 15 odd years ago, I myself did my very best Michael Jackson dance impersonation in front of thousands of people I didn't know. Not because I had succombed to the supernatural, not because I was hypnotised, because it was fun and I was prepared to play along. Martin sent those that did not want to play along back to their seats.
Again you are interpreting but there may be some elements of hypnosis involved in some cases. I just think you need to be very careful not to assume that's the explanation when you find situations you can't explain easily.
Christianity as a whole in its historical traditional expression to be highly rational and in fact the very source of empirical science
Cough. You're joking, right?
Not in the slightest.
This is the religion that put civilised society and early Greek incarnations of science on hold for about 1500 years.
That's the revisionist history that's taught these days for sure.
The religion that early scientists has to tread carefully around in fear of their life.
According to my favorite source on this subject, Under the Influence by Alvin J. Schmidt, empirical science was developed from the Christian faith in a rational God who made a lawful universe. He quotes Alfred North Whitehead (in Science and the Modern World), p.18, saying that "the origin of science required Christianity's 'insistence on the rationality of God.'" [Schmidt,p 219]
He also argues that the opposition to empirical science came out of Aristotelian ideas that the Catholic Church had absorbed, rationalized by the Bible but misrepresenting the Bible, which does not oppose science. He makes a good case for this.
"'From the thirteenth century onward into the eighteenth,' says Lynn White (Dynamo and Virgin Reconsidered,89) 'every major scientist, in effect, explained his motivations in religious terms'" {Schmidt 222. He discusses briefly both the science and the religion of a list of 31 scientists, starting with Robert Grossetest, 12th-13th c. who "first proposed the inductive, experimental method," followed by Roger Bacon, William of Occam, Jean Buridan, Nicholas of Oresme, Copernicus, Da Vinci, Parcelsus, Pare, Vesalius, Brahe, Kepler, Galileo, Harvey, Pascal, Boyle, Newton, Leibniz, Priestley, Lavoisier, Volta, Dalton, Ampere, Ohm, Faraday, Simpson, Pasteur, Mendel, Kelvin, Lister, Carver. All considered themselves Christians. Some wrote treatises on Christian topics. Many on the list, such as Blaise Pascal and Michael Faraday, were extremely devout Christians. Grossetest, Bacon and Occam were Franciscan monks. Schmidt describes Faraday as "a member of ...a small fundamentalist Christian group that firmly believed in the Bible and in Jesus Christ as God's only Son. He ...read the Bible daily....'"
The same religion that in it's present fundementalist manifestations seeks to once again censor science because it has replaced creation myths with scientific theory.
Well, at least get our point of view on this because some of us do not see it your way at all. Evolution is not science. It has not been proved and cannot be proved. It eats data, but the data do not support it. It is all an imaginative construction that is rationalized as science and defended by its aficionados with all the ferocity and loyalty of Rottweilers, but not with reason. True science is done by evolutionists but the theory of evolution is merely a big piece of baggage they pack along with their work and rationalize by their work and make their work fit, but it is forever incompatible with most of the actual facts of their work. Yes I know this is argued to a fare-thee-well here, and in my view very poor arguments on the evo side are allowed to trump rather good ones on the creo side, but there is not going to be any way to get anyone to see this, so I'm merely stating this for the record.
but I deny evolution. Many unbelievers simply make a kneejerk equation between a denial of evolution and irrationalism. To be fair, you need to make extremely careful distinctions.
IMO there is no rational basis on which to deny evolution.
Nothing unexpected there. That's what I just said is the prevailing view.
150 years worth of re-inforcement and additional evidence, thousands of scientists working across many inter-related testable fields of science vs the ever shrinking cry of the worshippers of the God of the Gaps: "we haven't seen a wolf turn into a whale, so we're still unconvinced".
That's a rank caricature of the creationist arguments, a deliberate choice of the silliest expression of it to mock. The testable fields have testable observations, but the theory itself remains forever untestable and nonsensical. The reinforcement as you say is certainly real, but it's just the habit of thought shared by all those in the scientific community, it has no true empirical basis. It's an amazing case of group delusion reinforced by habit.
I know many Christians accept evolution and the age of the earth and that Christianity need not rest upon the validity of a literal interpretation of the Bible, but Christian fundamentalism can be pulled apart on these issues. From their the rest follows, and you guys know it. That's why you are kicking and screaming so hard and using every trick in the box. Emotional conversion experiences are just one of them.
I think evolution is crazy. It doesn't faze me at all. It makes me laugh. But it's true that some Christians of weak faith or weak intellectual ability or just noncombative personalities (which doesn't describe me) get broken by this idiotic theory, try to hold on to their belief while embracing it although it contradicts the word of God, or lose their faith altogether, or have their faith reduced to a vague shadowy thing they cling to because they are truly born again Christians nevertheless, though they can't defend it, and I consider that very sad and wonder who is going to be held accountable for it in the end.
This message has been edited by Faith, 06-08-2005 04:08 AM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 46 by Gilgamesh, posted 06-08-2005 2:05 AM Gilgamesh has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 54 by Gilgamesh, posted 06-08-2005 5:02 AM Faith has replied

  
Gilgamesh
Inactive Member


Message 50 of 199 (215249)
06-08-2005 4:05 AM


Topic!
Hello Guys,
Not that I am overly protective of my first topic in over a year, but I would prefer if this thread is not used as another opportunity to voice mythological hokey about demons and such.
My world is one void of supernatural monsters: when I am alone in my room, I am alone in my room: there are no bogey men, demons, ghosts or pixies. My world is easy to join: you just have to exorcise superstitions from your head.

Replies to this message:
 Message 51 by Faith, posted 06-08-2005 4:10 AM Gilgamesh has replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 51 of 199 (215251)
06-08-2005 4:10 AM
Reply to: Message 50 by Gilgamesh
06-08-2005 4:05 AM


Re: Topic!
My world is one void of supernatural monsters: when I am alone in my room, I am alone in my room: there are no bogey men, demons, ghosts or pixies. My world is easy to join: you just have to exorcise superstitions from your head.
Jeepers, what do those of us do who started out with your unidimensional world and then discovered we were wrong?
But I will honor the topic request.
This message has been edited by Faith, 06-08-2005 04:11 AM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 50 by Gilgamesh, posted 06-08-2005 4:05 AM Gilgamesh has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 53 by Gilgamesh, posted 06-08-2005 4:21 AM Faith has replied

  
Gilgamesh
Inactive Member


Message 52 of 199 (215255)
06-08-2005 4:20 AM
Reply to: Message 48 by Phat
06-08-2005 3:13 AM


Re: Quite an interesting topic!
Hello Phatboy
Gilgamesh, you may know that I was and am a born again Christian. As of late, I have backed away from church involvement and have experimented with other belief systems...one of the reasons that I like to hang out at this site!
I wasn't aware that you had moved away from organised religion. Congratulations. I sincerely hope you find something worthwhile.
I read through that website by Dick Sutphen. He seems genuine to me, and is in no way against God or spirituality. He points out that nobody can trult be immune from brainwashing techniques, however..so i wonder how you claim to be immune from such entrapments!
Simple, and here's my biggest tip for punters: understand that your own subjective analysis of something can be horribly flawed. Never accept anything dogmatically.
Sutphen is a bit paranoid for my liking.
I was "born again" and converted through a cultlike church and thought that many of the rituals were wrong...even though I was a believer.
Please elaborate on what you experienced and witnessed.
Sutphen emphasizes that most preachers are unaware of this technique and use it through copying "what works" from other preachers.
Ironic: they have formula that works, but don't understand why it works. Suits them though: everything they don't understand is assigned to the supernatural anyway. They don't understand the reasons why anecdotal evidence is useless in validating healing techniques, but they use it anyway as evidence of God's faith healing power.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 48 by Phat, posted 06-08-2005 3:13 AM Phat has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 57 by Phat, posted 06-08-2005 6:41 AM Gilgamesh has replied
 Message 58 by Faith, posted 06-08-2005 1:56 PM Gilgamesh has replied

  
Gilgamesh
Inactive Member


Message 53 of 199 (215256)
06-08-2005 4:21 AM
Reply to: Message 51 by Faith
06-08-2005 4:10 AM


Re: Topic!
Faith wrote:
Jeepers, what do those of us do who started out with your unidimensional world and then discovered we were wrong?
Seek medical help.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 51 by Faith, posted 06-08-2005 4:10 AM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 56 by Faith, posted 06-08-2005 5:22 AM Gilgamesh has replied

  
Gilgamesh
Inactive Member


Message 54 of 199 (215262)
06-08-2005 5:02 AM
Reply to: Message 49 by Faith
06-08-2005 3:58 AM


So off topic!
Faith wrote:
That's your theory but what's your proof? Some of us who did fake it KNOW we faked it. But if others deny faking it or describe something that would be very hard to fake you are just going to insist your interpretation is the truth about what happened no matter what, right? As you just now did, as if you KNOW it's nothing but "playing along" -- but again, you cannot prove that for all cases.
Maybe some didn't fake it: and actually had a physchotic episode or a fit. Whatever, nothing supernatural there. You have to prove the existence of the supernatural before it needs even be considered when trying to explain very real world phenomena. You can go with my hastily abbreviated description of people being pushed over, or you can propose supernatural powers. What's the point? What explanatory power does it have?
Again you are interpreting but there may be some elements of hypnosis involved in some cases. I just think you need to be very careful not to assume that's the explanation when you find situations you can't explain easily.
I can't recall the current opinions of the legitimacy of hypnosis, but if it's is a legitimate phenomena it is not a supernatural one.
That's the revisionist history that's taught these days for sure.
Humanity finally gets out from under the yoke of having to interpret eveything in light of the Christian faith, on pain of certain death, and you think that this is a undesirable thing? It is hardly suprising that the old way of looking at things was in line with a church that just so happened to like burning people at the stake.
No wonder you guys are so desparate to claim science as your own. Everything we have achieved in the last few hundred years is because we have escaped the yoke of religious dogma. You call it "revisionist", but it is humanity finally getting it right for once. The evidence of this is the world which science has given us.
That you'd drag us back to the old days makes you a very worrying individual indeed.
He also argues that the opposition to empirical science came out of Aristotelian ideas that the Catholic Church had absorbed, rationalized by the Bible but misrepresenting the Bible, which does not oppose science. He makes a good case for this.
But as you guys so often like to forget, the Catholic church was Christianity in it's entirity for a heck of a long time. Did "true" Christiniaty just get put on hold for a milenia?
"'From the thirteenth century onward into the eighteenth,' says Lynn White (Dynamo and Virgin Reconsidered,89) 'every major scientist, in effect, explained his motivations in religious terms'"
If I'm not mistaken, you have argued this hokum in other threads when you atempt to claim that it was Creationist beliefs that lead certain scientists to their discoveries (Pasteur is one of the common examples). And if I am not further mistaken, my response will be the same you received: what scientist was not operating within a religious framework at those times? That religion did not however lead to the discovery, it was undoubtably applying an early form of the scientific method. If their motivations and discoveries were not explained in religious terms that would have risked death.
Where's Schraf when I need her.
Well, at least get our point of view on this because some of us do not see it your way at all. Evolution is not science. It has not been proved and cannot be proved.It is all an imaginative construction that is rationalized as science and defended by its aficionados with all the ferocity and loyalty of Rottweilers, but not with reason.
This is exactly what I did not want to see on this thread. Christians spouting their doctrinal hokey.
I'm absolutely positive that you have been shot down on these issues many other times, much more eloquently:
- Evolution falls within the definition of science
- Your Supreme Court has declared it as such
- Science does not deal in proofs: that's mathematics
- Take your irrational conspiracy theories, along with your mythical demons elsewhere
, so I'm merely stating this for the record.
No you're being a total bitch, breaking forum rules and disrespecting my request in the opening post to refrain from proselytizing. So bugger off: go play on a dates thread!
The testable fields have testable observations, but the theory itself remains forever untestable and nonsensical. The reinforcement as you say is certainly real, but it's just the habit of thought shared by all those in the scientific community, it has no true empirical basis. It's an amazing case of group delusion reinforced by habit.
Admin!!!
I think evolution is crazy. It doesn't faze me at all. It makes me laugh. But it's true that some Christians of weak faith or weak intellectual ability or just noncombative personalities (which doesn't describe me) get broken by this idiotic theory, try to hold on to their belief while embracing it although it contradicts the word of God,
You have nothing to add Faith. You are part of the problem.
We are having a round the table meeting in a half an hour, and you have renewed my vigor in the importance of the book.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 49 by Faith, posted 06-08-2005 3:58 AM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 55 by Faith, posted 06-08-2005 5:20 AM Gilgamesh has replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 55 of 199 (215264)
06-08-2005 5:20 AM
Reply to: Message 54 by Gilgamesh
06-08-2005 5:02 AM


Re: So off topic!
How quickly you descend to sheer mean nastiness. Why is that? I was in context, explaining my position and you become a rude raving madman because you can't control what my position is I guess. Get a grip man. And go ahead and do your smear piece, because that is all it will be as you have no understanding and no respect for your subject matter.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 54 by Gilgamesh, posted 06-08-2005 5:02 AM Gilgamesh has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 59 by Gilgamesh, posted 06-08-2005 6:15 PM Faith has not replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 56 of 199 (215265)
06-08-2005 5:22 AM
Reply to: Message 53 by Gilgamesh
06-08-2005 4:21 AM


Last off topic remark
Jeepers, what do those of us do who started out with your unidimensional world and then discovered we were wrong?
Seek medical help.
I wonder what treatment plan would work best to cure me of my sanity and reality and return me to my old delusions? Shock treatment? Ice wraps? Lobotomy? An afternoon with Dr. Phil?
This message has been edited by Faith, 06-08-2005 05:22 AM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 53 by Gilgamesh, posted 06-08-2005 4:21 AM Gilgamesh has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 60 by Gilgamesh, posted 06-08-2005 6:21 PM Faith has not replied

  
Phat
Member
Posts: 18262
From: Denver,Colorado USA
Joined: 12-30-2003
Member Rating: 1.1


Message 57 of 199 (215274)
06-08-2005 6:41 AM
Reply to: Message 52 by Gilgamesh
06-08-2005 4:20 AM


Re: Quite an interesting topic!
First off, in my Admin mode, I will have to agree with Gilgamesh, Faith. You need to respect his topic, here. This admonition is coming from a fellow believer.
************************************************************
Gilgamesh writes:
Congratulations. I sincerely hope you find something worthwhile.
I still believe that I have found Jesus...in the midst of all of the fakery, "enlightened" discoveries, and psuedo-religious ideologies. In that respect, I am still a believer.
Gilgamesh writes:
Never accept anything dogmatically.
Are you suggesting that I accept things empirically? Skeptically? Cautiously? If so, I probably agree with you. I would caution you to be careful at rejecting things totally. Completely. Obviously. Because truth is often anything but obvious.
Gilgamesh writes:
Please elaborate on what you experienced and witnessed.
The church was a non-denominational newly formed group of Charismatics. The Pastor was flashy and had a flare for the dramatic. People had demons cast out of them and showed emotional catharsis of a wide variety...from throwing up to screaming. I was always skeptical, but there was a sense of power and mystery in this process. I know that you may say that I am too quick to label the unknown as "supernatural", but I fear that you have ruled this option out entirely. I will tell you some more stories later...gotta go for now. Thanks, Gilgamesh!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 52 by Gilgamesh, posted 06-08-2005 4:20 AM Gilgamesh has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 64 by Gilgamesh, posted 06-08-2005 8:46 PM Phat has not replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 58 of 199 (215355)
06-08-2005 1:56 PM
Reply to: Message 52 by Gilgamesh
06-08-2005 4:20 AM


Explaining the phenomena
Ironic: they have formula that works, but don't understand why it works. Suits them though: everything they don't understand is assigned to the supernatural anyway. They don't understand the reasons why anecdotal evidence is useless in validating healing techniques, but they use it anyway as evidence of God's faith healing power.
While I'm sure there is something to this observation, I'm also sure that the anti-supernatural bias can only come up with equally subjective and invalid explanations and treat them as fact in exactly the same way. A genuine study of these things with truly reliable results can't come out of that perspective either.
This message has been edited by Faith, 06-08-2005 01:56 PM
This message has been edited by Faith, 06-08-2005 01:58 PM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 52 by Gilgamesh, posted 06-08-2005 4:20 AM Gilgamesh has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 63 by Gilgamesh, posted 06-08-2005 8:35 PM Faith has replied

  
Gilgamesh
Inactive Member


Message 59 of 199 (215424)
06-08-2005 6:15 PM
Reply to: Message 55 by Faith
06-08-2005 5:20 AM


Re: So off topic!
Faith wrote:
How quickly you descend to sheer mean nastiness. Why is that? I was in context, explaining my position and you become a rude raving madman because you can't control what my position is I guess. Get a grip man. And go ahead and do your smear piece, because that is all it will be as you have no understanding and no respect for your subject matter.
My bad. Most of that was meant in jest and hastily written because I was trying to run out the door. We can take some of the points you raised into another thread if you wish, although I totally bet you have been grilled on them many, many times here before by other contributers much more capable than I.
I have little respect for the subject matter, granted. I'm not the author.
It is not written for you but for those you prey upon.
This message has been edited by Gilgamesh, 06-08-2005 06:16 PM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 55 by Faith, posted 06-08-2005 5:20 AM Faith has not replied

  
Gilgamesh
Inactive Member


Message 60 of 199 (215426)
06-08-2005 6:21 PM
Reply to: Message 56 by Faith
06-08-2005 5:22 AM


Re: Last off topic remark
I wonder what treatment plan would work best to cure me of my sanity and reality and return me to my old delusions? Shock treatment? Ice wraps? Lobotomy? An afternoon with Dr. Phil?
For starters your own self assessment would be of no worth. And then we come to the age old dilemma: at what point does the maifestation of religion become a mental health concern.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 56 by Faith, posted 06-08-2005 5:22 AM Faith has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024